Guest blog: Lose the lads' mags - or risk legal action

[JessMumsnet]

Brand new legal advice shows that displaying and selling magazines and papers with Page 3-style front cover images can constitute sexual harassment or sex discrimination in the workplace. This means that employees who are exposed to such publications, as well as customers, could take legal action against retailers.

In this guest blog Elizabeth Prochaska, barrister at Matrix Chambers, explains the laws which underpin the latest campaign to rid our shop shelves of lads' mags.

What do you think? Let us have your thoughts on the thread - and if you blog on this issue, don't forget to post your URL. Also, please do share on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

"As you might have seen in the papers this Bank Holiday, campaign groups UK Feminista and Object have launched a new campaign to Lose the Lads' Mags. The campaigners joined forces with a group of lawyers to warn high-street retailers that they risk legal action if they continue to display lads' mags, such as Zoo and Nuts, on their shelves.

As regular Mumsnetters will know, lads' mags have been the target of several high profile campaigns, including Object's Feminist Fridays, Mumsnet's Let Girls be Girls and Shelve It! The Government-commissioned 'Sexualisation of Young People Review' in 2010 found: "a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm. ... Exposure to the sexualised female ideal is linked with lower self-esteem, negative moods and depression in young women and girls."

The evidence shows that lads' mags normalise the objectification of women. As the government review found, they promote attitudes and behaviours that underpin discrimination and violence against women and have a negative impact on the self-esteem and aspirations of women and girls. Extensive research has revealed that viewing media which reduces women to sex objects leads people to become significantly more accepting of gender stereotyping, sexual harassment, interpersonal violence and rape myths.

Following the Mumsnet campaign, some retailers agreed to put lads' mags on the top shelf so that children are less likely to be exposed to the images. But many retailers continue to display lads' mags prominently and employees of the shops are required to handle the material, regardless of where it is stacked. So what can the law do about it? The law respects the right to publish pornographic magazines and the campaigners are not calling for the magazines to be banned. The campaign is focused on the protection against sexual harassment and discrimination found in the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act consolidated all the UK equality laws, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, in one piece of legislation. It makes sexual harassment by employers unlawful. It also prohibits providers of services, such as newsagents and supermarkets, from harassing their customers. Sexual harassment is defined in section 26(2) of the Equality Act to mean 'unwanted conduct of a sexual nature'. The person's conduct needs to have the effect of violating another person's dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. There is no need for the employer or shopkeeper to intend to degrade or humiliate a person and the subjective perception of the person who feels degraded is taken into account when deciding whether or not the conduct constitutes harassment.

There have been successful legal cases brought by female employees who have felt degraded by their male colleagues viewing pornographic images in the workplace regardless of whether or not the men intended to create an offensive environment. UKFeminista and Object have evidence that customers and shop employees are unhappy being involuntarily exposed to the pornographic images on the front covers of lads' mags. The lawyers supporting the campaign argue that shops that require their employees to handle these magazines and display them on their shelves risk creating a degrading environment that may lead to claims under the Equality Act. If a woman does bring a claim, it will be up to the courts to decide whether she was sexually harassed in the circumstances of her case. In the meantime, retailers will be thinking hard about heeding the call to lose the lads' mags.

You can join the campaign here: www.losetheladsmags.org.uk

Thanks FloraFox for the clarification of the logical side.

And how about the circularity of using the term 'mud sling' as a mud sling eh? I mean saying if you don't like A then you must hate B is a clear mud slinging tactic(or more than simply slinging mud, a deflecting tactic by bringing irrelevant issues in).

However to refer to a critique no matter how grounded, intelligent and true as some sort of mindless mudslinging exercise- is itself such an insult to all intelligent critiques grounded in the truth.

This is not about being a 'prude' but it is about objectification.

Absolutely... and there are subtle messages reinforced through portrayals of nudity by the inequality and lack of context. I mean nakedness is a form of vulnerability no matter how many times people try to spin it as empowerment - that's why they strip people naked in Guantanamo Bay - because prisoners feel powerless, vulnerable and will be more compliant and easy to control as a result.

but how do you know what an individual thinks of when they see an image of a topless woman in a lads mag for example? you don't truly know is the simple answer. How do you know that after seeing these images, they then regard the model as a sex object or other woman as sex objects. Again it is impossible to know this. How do you not know that most decent ordinary persons, actually realise that she is just modelling, or acting ( pure fantasy, like any other kind of entertainment) and she still a real person at the end of the day and what she does in front of the camera does not reflect what she does in real life? and that people don't think 'ah look she's taken her clothes off so i reckon that all other women should want or have to do the same.' or 'hey that's all women are good for - taking their clothes off to please me'

All that objectification is saying is that people are stupid (particularly men in this case) and can't be trusted to view such things, without it warping their minds. You are wanting to believe the negative in people but there is little evidence to back this up. You are scaremongering and trying to make lads mags a scapegoat for the actions and bad behaviour of a few. It's this kind of thinking that fuels the nanny state, and could lead to an Orwellian big brother style society complete with the thought police.

I don't have a problem with individual persons saying x,y and z offends them and think the point Rosabud made on this was a good one, but making blanket assumptions telling other people what they are thinking or what they should think is just not fair and is very suppressive behaviour.

"All that objectification is saying is that people are stupid (particularly men in this case) "

No objectification is the viewing and treatment of a human being as an object. It is a matter of perception .

"and can't be trusted to view such things, without it warping their minds." It is a two-way process. Men who feel comfortable objectifying women are already sexist. By consuming products to feed their sexist perceptions of women as objects, their sexism is reinforced and validated (including their sense of superior entitlement to view and treat women as objects).

"You are wanting to believe the negative in people but there is little evidence to back this up."
I have plenty of evidence to back this up.

"You are scaremongering and trying to make lads mags a scapegoat for the actions and bad behaviour of a few."
Lads mags are the actions and bad behaviour of a few. The tiny number of people who have profited from lads mags have caused a lot of misery while they were on the make.

"It's this kind of thinking that fuels the nanny state"
The nanny state is a misogynist myth conjured up to oppose fairness, equality and safety for all. "and could lead to an Orwellian big brother style society complete with the thought police." I think this discussion would be helped if we acknowledge the difference between oppressive state control of the little person, and empowering the little person to speak out and fight against a powerful oppressor. They are two very different things - polar opposites in fact.

"making blanket assumptions telling other people what they are thinking or what they should think is just not fair and is very suppressive behaviour."

Look, if someone buys Bernard Manning's complete DVD collection for entertainment purposes - then they are racist. Simple. If they buy lads mags, they are sexist. Calling a spade a spade in this case is totally fair, and is no more suppressive than the truth itself.

Pictures of women in very little clothing posed to be sexually enticing are all about showing women as sexual objects. The pictures themselves are objectifying. It's not about what's in X's head when they look at them.

Yes, women's magazines do have pictures of women in bikinis. They would sack the photographer if they took the kind of pictures used in 'lads' mags.' The poses are overtly sexual. That's the point of them. Legs open, lips parted, chests pushed out.

Women are both desired and desire. We like sex. I don't like seeing one aspect of women's sexuality, grossly exaggerated, and stacked next to The Economist. It's women presented as sex dolls.

"one aspect of women's sexuality, grossly exaggerated, and stacked next to The Economist. It's women presented as sex dolls."

Very well put

I hate to break it to everyone, but attraction is at first (extremely commonly) superficial. Therefore we ALL initially objectify to some degree based on the limited information available. I bet the women don?t feel at all objectified. I strongly suspect most of them will bask in the glow of it at nightclubs from Penzance to Pitt Lochry! Let them celebrate it! One day such glories will only be captured in reflection.

I agree move the magazines up a level, but ban??

I'd suggest magazines which highlight the tiniest bodily inperfections, in closeup,are far more dangerous. Why is it that magazines that highlight the beauty of a womans body are criticized, but those that create insecurity are overlooked..Could it be the readership??

"I hate to break it to everyone, but attraction is at first (extremely commonly) superficial. Therefore we ALL initially objectify to some degree based on the limited information available"

I hate to break it to you, but there is a difference between objectification and attraction - no matter how superficial.

Attraction= be attracted to someone or share a mutual attraction.(NB- this implies a level of equality, of a two person experience)
Objectification= view or treat someone as a thing to be used. ( this is about power imbalance, where one person is the agent that acts upon the other thing-ish sub-person.)

I very much doubt being treated as an object leaves anyone in a glow no matter where they are (unless they have been so badly mentally abused and isolated that even disrespect feels like positive attention) in fact for most people this disrespect feels frightening, humiliating and violating. It falls on an abuse spectrum - from creepy glances through harassment to violent rape.

I don't understand this angst about how supporting this would be equal to a nanny state/big brother/censorship/thought police. The magazines can still exist and may still be bought, but covered up on the top shelf, or better still, just in sex shops. People who insist on reading them would still have that opportunity. The real reason why his argument is wheeled out is because you think you are entitled to it and its harassing effect on women doesn't need to be taken into account.

"I very much doubt being treated as an object leaves anyone in a glow no matter where they are (unless they have been so badly mentally abused and isolated that even disrespect feels like positive attention)"

So you're saying that by appearing in such a magazine intelligent, wordly young women are doomed to be/feel violated? I'd say no. Most treat it as a giggle over a glass of wine, some use it as a springboard for further modeling. some are a bit embarrassed but put it down later to one of lifes experiences. I doubt any of them go into Post Traumatic Disorder over it. They may get a bit more attention, but its unlikely they'd have done it if they were shrinking violets :)

Of course if anyone could provide me with a good research source that significantly confirms your hypothesis then I'm all ears.

What does being 'intelligent' or 'wordly' have to do with anything?

For as long as women have second class status there will always be a compelling incentive to participate in their own exploitation. Being part of the sex industry from prostitution through to 'glamour' modelling involves a form of submission that is fundamentally degrading, but that is still a leg-up from other depressing non-alternatives.

There are many amazing wonderful women within the sex industry and also exited, who are abused or exploited, and this is in no way an indication of or a stain upon their characters. That's what is so depressing about objectification. No matter how worldly, intelligent, funny, talented, original and brilliant a woman is, she is reduced, viewed and treated as a piece of meat or a pleasure doll, her worth packaged up and quantifiable in order to be traded and consumed by men who couldn't give a flying f*ck about what is actually going on inside her mind- beyond a fantasy they want to project onto her body as a blank, non-person canvass.

"The magazines can still exist and may still be bought, but covered up on the top shelf, or better still, just in sex shops."

Just the top shelf so that the kids don't sneak a peek. Why reduce bawdyness to the extremes found in your local adult emporium?

Really you've only got to scan the cover of Cosmopolitan to get some idea of the sexualisation and male objectification within.

I've really no problem with Cosmo or the lads mags as long as they're kept high.

Lads mags are sexist,no point saying they're not,you notice how the women's mags showing naked men have disappeared , wonder why is it because publishers are male? . Men always have multiple comments about harmless fun blah blah ,but if it offends it offends and no one should have to apologise for that.by the by my other half was seriously offended when I looked at naked men in a magazine at Ann summers party one years ago but apparently that was different!

Agree Bored. Scarlet magazine was discontinued 3 years ago.

I'd suggest magazines which highlight the tiniest bodily inperfections, in closeup,are far more dangerous.

Really Mug. I very much doubt that the men who yell out nasty comments at women who walk past pubs (because they dont match up to whats in the lads mags) have been reading Heat or Closer (though i cant stand those either)

Really Darkesteyes Yes. What made you think it was one of the Lads mags that made them be so cruel? Were they waving the latest copy of Loaded like a triumphant banner? More likely they were a bunch of pathetic pisshead scum trying to impress each other. I worked a bar for a good many years and once I saw five women in their thirties(ish) insult this one guy walking past,one directly to his face. The guy got a little pissed off and retorted verbally to which one of the women calmly said. "I can always call the bouncers". Strangely enough their wasn't a copy of Cosmopolitan in sight.

Mug their comment to a friend of mine was (and i quote) Cor you are no fucking Lucy Pinder are you. Followed up with a comment about her flat chest.

Strangely enough their wasn't a copy of Cosmopolitan in sight.

Well there wouldnt be would there since its aimed at women in their 20s.

Cor you are no fucking Lucy Pinder are you. Followed up with a comment about her flat chest.
Yes that's unforgivable. Im sorry that she had to put up with that.

Mug, I just did what you suggested. I googled Cosmopolitan covers and guess what? Not a naked bloke inside. There does seem to be an article about sex in every issue though, but it manages to do that without needing to put an objectified man on the cover pure for the sexual gratification of its female readership. So what are you on about?

Or have I completely misunderstood?

Darkesteyes "'Id suggest magazines which highlight the tiniest bodily inperfections, in closeup,are far more dangerous."

Much as I hate it, I'd say that the 'if you don't like it don't buy it' argument holds more water with the harms of Heat and Closer than with lads mags. With lads mags they shout out and harass even from the stands they are displayed on, and in so doing, make it seem an accepted and normal male-bonding/masculinity verification technique to demean women such as in the anecdote you described.

You can't choose not to be sexually harassed and mistreated by 'lads mag men' when you go about your daily business, or choose not to have their leery language shouting at you from the news stands. But Heat and Closer - I never notice much really. I don't pick them up. Don't look. So it is possible to avoid them and they aren't a form of sexual harassment.

Perhaps I'd feel they were more dangerous if I wasn't able to avoid them.

not a naked bloke inside

I meant to say: not a naked bloke in sight. On the covers that is.

radioeggs
The nanny state is a misogynist myth conjured up to oppose fairness, equality and safety for all. that has to be one of the most bizarre arguments i have encountered on a forum in some time. Are you really saying that only men oppose the nanny state? if You are, then your statement is actually very sexist.

and that link you put up, is that really the best study you could find? A sample size of just 21 blokes of similar age? it explains very little about the methodology used or how they analysed the results. Why did they not conduct the experiment with women either? and just ASSUME it wouldn't work. So the experiment has no control sample. Maybe if they had done the same test with women it would given exactly the same results which would have scuppered their agenda? and flashing up images for just two tenths of a second, surely that's more to do with colours than anything else, as in the contrast between flesh tones and clothes. I therefore conclude this is nothing more than junk science and proves nothing.

I see you continue to make assumptions about how people should think so i will again post what i put earlier and the part you chose not to reply to:

How do you not know that most decent ordinary persons, actually realise that she is just modelling, or acting (pure fantasy, like any other kind of entertainment) and she still a real person at the end of the day and what she does in front of the camera does not reflect what she does in real life?

come on then? how do you know this isn't the case for the majority of people? How can you only assume they see topless models as chunks of meat or objects?

There is a nice article here written from a woman's perspective and she is pretty much saying the same thing as me, for what it's worth:

www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/05/censorship-and-over-simplification-problems-lose-lads-mags-campaign

"Are you really saying that only men oppose the nanny state? if You are, then your statement is actually very sexist." He he - its funny that you assume only men can be misogynist in the same breath of accusing me of being sexist against men

"is that really the best study you could find" No it isn't, but it was the only link I could be bothered to find at the time.

" How can you only assume they see topless models as chunks of meat or objects?"
Ill refer you to Justfornowitwilldo's post to respond to this again: "Pictures of women in very little clothing posed to be sexually enticing are all about showing women as sexual objects. The pictures themselves are objectifying. It's not about what's in X's head when they look at them."

The logic is that they are portrayed as objects, and people who are comfortable enjoying those images, are comfortable looking at objectified portrayals of women. However, if on the other hand they saw the full humanity of the women, they would feel uncomfortable and conflicted about the vouyerism of it, and strange about the intimate knowledge of someone they don't even know, and awkward about seeing a genuine woman acting in an exaggerated clownish sexual caricature for approval and money.